Is America Serious About Stopping Iran?

onejerusalem.org ^ | onejerusalem.org

[Iam1ru1-2]

Remember the recent reaction of the US to Iran's plot to assassinate a foreign national on our soil? Our representatives pounded their chests declaring that Iran would pay for this illegal and outrageous activity. In the heat of the revelations which centered on the arrests by the Justice Department there was some talk of perhaps putting a credible military option in the mix of policies aimed at stopping Iran's nuclear program.

To no ones surprise, our military option has not materialized and it seems that all the bluster about increasing economic sanctions (Does anyone believe sanctions will stop the nuclear program?) comes the story that the United States is "Backing Away" from sanctions on Iran's national bank.

What? Is the Obama Administration trying to prove to the world that it is not committed to stopping Iran's nuclear program? Because that is what this decision does. It says to Iran and the world that Iran has the power to deter the United States from taking serious economic action against the outlaw regime in Tehran.

This troubling news comes just days before the International Atomic Energy Agency is reportedly going to declare that Iran's nuclear programs is speeding ahead with the development of weaponized nuclear energy. This is a time the United States must be seen by Iran as serious about denying Iran's messianic rulers the ability to produce nuclear weapons.

Writing in today's London Daily Telegraph, Con Coughlin and expert on Iran's mullah's says:

"The US President's softly-softly approach has failed to deter the ayatollahs in their bid to acquire nuclear weapons."

Judging by the Obama Administration's cowering actions, Mr. Coughlin appears to be correct.

[null and void]

America is. Obama isn’t.

[Pollster1]

Is Obama serious about stopping an enemy of freedom from destroying America? I’m sure that question doesn’t have to be answered.

[Empireoftheatom48]

Very true!

[parthian shot]

“The US President’s softly-softly approach has failed to deter the ayatollahs in their bid to acquire nuclear weapons.”

_____________________________________________

Gosh....I thought those strongly worded letters from Obama & Hillary would make the ayatollahs run scared! /s

[Soothesayer9]

Sorry but youre wrong. America isn’t either. We’re BROKE. No more money for any more wars, especially for those ungrateful ragheads over there.

The sooner we shrink the federal government, the sooner we can recover.

Any more wars are a no-go at this point.

[Michael Barnes]

All you say is true. Only problem is, all you say is true and without the U.S. strongly on the "world stage" we will inevitably be drawn into something much, much bigger in the long run and most likely due to the vacuum we leave behind on the "world stage" immediately.

[null and void]

The traditional democrat response to bad economic times is war.

[mamelukesabre]

A blockade like we dam well mean it would be the best option I think. economic sanctions are very effective in the long term if they are carried out like we mean it. Bad things happen to countries that continue to spend money and continue to fight wars long after they are broke. The economic woes of the weimar republic is what happens when a country does so.

[onedoug]

Tell that to this very determined islamist enemy.

[Longbow1969]

Only problem is, all you say is true and without the U.S. strongly on the "world stage" we will inevitably be drawn into something much, much bigger in the long run and most likely due to the vacuum we leave behind on the "world stage" immediately.

America is a rare animal - a benevolent world power. Our intentions are mostly good and we tend to leave behind something better wherever we go. The void that will be filled anywhere American retreats will almost certainly be far, far worse.

If we vanish from much of the world state, China, Russia, Iran, and other more negative forces will fill the void. That will only result in a much bigger conflict that America will inevitably be drawn into. This is what the Ron Paul types of the world refuse to see. They are much like the isolationists of the 1930's who believed we could avoid confronting Japan and Germany. What was not possible then is even more impossible now that the world is more globalized than ever.

[mamelukesabre]

Let the saudis fight them. Get the turks, kurds, and iraqis to fight. I think its time we start using our brains a little more against our enemies and our money and muscle a little less.

[Michael Barnes]

I’m interested in hearing more about a “blockade” like we mean it (seriously). Personally, I don’t think a blockade will win if Iran can get the means to light off “the big one”. They will just start bullying other countries around them for supplies and we wind up trying to blockade way more then we bargained for at serious cost in life and wealth; and this is not yet dealing in Iran’s allies; who will they really turn out to be??

[mamelukesabre]

No more trade with iran. Period. We have iran surrounded. We can destroy all roads crossing the iranian border WE can impose no fly zones and enforce them against CIVILIAN planes also. We can seize assets in foreign banks...I’m sure the europeans would be glad to take iran’s assets. They need the money. Let them try to fire off a nuke.

Lets consider iran has a tantrum and uses a nuclear missile. with their missile tech, they won’t be able to nuke anything but a neighboring country...then watch all hell turn loose on iran. Let them gang up, let them loot and take what they may and seek any and all revenge they thirst for. we don’t ever need to step across an iranian border.

sanctions and blockades worked when cuba turned commie and tried to get nukes. You hear any flak out of castro lately? hell no. He’s fully neutered.

[Jack Hammer]

No.

[familyop]

Iran Placing Medium-Range Missiles in Venezuela; Can Reach the U.S.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2640111/posts

‘Die Welt’: Iran building rocket bases in Venezuela
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2721122/posts

[Michael Barnes]

As we stand today, we have a weakling at the helm. How is he going to get other countries to go along with "no trade. period."? (that's if he would even try). Secondly, our troop strength in the region is not as strong as it once was and is depleting rapidly with a weak Iraq to Iran's west. Iran is not so surrounded anymore. Furthermore, while we are pissing around with Iran because our politicians have no back bone, Iran goes all 12th Imam and shuts down the straits, on their terms. That region is all sorts of wild at that point and we have a good chunk of our forces their that need supplied (who would be blockading who at that point if Turkey up and got pissed at, say, a Pelosi type re-affirming Armenian genocide out of the clear blue sky).

Bottom line, while I do not disagree with you, Iran needs dealt with; finally; I don't see blockades doing it. Iran can muddy those waters very quick and turn the tide against us and we have a more than a handful of saboteurs known as Democrats serving in elected positions who will gladly help.

[mamelukesabre]

yikes. If that’s still there, it needs to be dealt with. Maybe its time for some good old fashioned CIA mischief...foment rebellion, assassinations, brainwashing, real nasty sneaky double crossing stuff.